Support NeoGAF

[hawk2025]

THERE IS NO WAGE GAP.

Well. There is one that is about 7 cents on the dollar. But is not 23 cents.

Talking about a wage gap is not just about teasing out the causal part of the gap that can be attributed to gender.

Addressing the cause of the other 16 cents also matters.

 

[Teggy]

This is why I diablos about the LA Times poll (tweet from Aug 8)

Michael Tracey
‏@mtracey
USC/LA Times poll consistently shows Trump with an outlier-ish lead https://election.usc.edu/ For what it's worth, they nailed 2012 pop vote

 

[Slizeezyc]

This is why I diablos about the LA Times poll (tweet from Aug 8)

Nail one vote, commence the DIABLOS.

 

[Iolo]

This is why I diablos about the LA Times poll (tweet from Aug 8)

"they" I think was RAND, the guys who run this poll came from there. doesn't mean much

btw the rand poll should be starting up again shortly, something else to obsess over daily

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This is why I diablos about the LA Times poll (tweet from Aug 8)

Who cares about Mtracey.

 

[Armaros]

This is why I diablos about the LA Times poll (tweet from Aug 8)

They changed how their polling methodology works this year.

They are not polling like they did in 2012.

Edit: something a word.

 

[nature boy]

If Face the Nation is going to have polls, I'm guessing they'll be YouGov polls.

And if I had to guess, 4 points in Ohio, tied in Iowa.

What's wrong with YouGov?

That polls has been favorable to Trump since forever. In fact, it's the most favorable poll for Trump out there, almost as much as Rasmussen.

The poll is totally FUBAR. 18-34 they are essentially tied, AA Trump support at 15%, Hispanic support at 32%.

I can't trust that poll, but of course the Trump campaign (and Fox News) are all over it.
Might as well use Statespoll.com lol.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Talking about a wage gap is not just about teasing out the causal part of the gap that can be attributed to gender.

Addressing the cause of the other 16 cents also matters.

First off, the 77 cents-on-the-dollar number does not control for professions. It's just the average wage of women versus the average wage of men. Considering women work minimum and low-wage jobs more often than men do, that counts for a significant portion of it.

Secondly, you are being extremely disingenuous if you can admit that there are many other factors which contribute to pay inequity between two individuals, regardless of any demographic, but still claim that this is a discussion about a wage-gap between genders. That improperly frames the entire discussion and also disregards the entire conclusion of this evidence, namely that women are paid less than men because they are women.

True. Sometimes. Kind of. But not as much as you would believe and not in every demographic. For instance, women under 30 are paid more than men under 30 in LA, even when you control for race, occupation, and degree held.

 

[Teggy]

They changed how their polling methodology this year.

They are not polling like they did in 2012.

I actually followed up with him and he said they were, but I'd rather believe you

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

are you guys freaking about a single poll, when the aggregate is +6/+7?

cmon

 

[hawk2025]

First off, the 77 cents-on-the-dollar number does not control for professions. It's just the average wage of women versus the average wage of men. Considering women work minimum and low-wage jobs more often than men do, that counts for a significant portion of it.

Secondly, you are being extremely disingenuous if you can admit that there are many other factors which contribute to pay inequity between two individuals, regardless of any demographic, but still claim that this is a discussion about a wage-gap between genders. That improperly frames the entire discussion and also disregards the entire conclusion of this evidence, namely that women are paid less than men because they are women.

True. Sometimes. Kind of. But not as much as you would believe and not in every demographic. For instance, women under 30 are paid more than men under 30 in LA, even when you control for race, occupation, and degree held.

How am I being disingenuous?

There is a correlational wage gap and a causal wage gap. It's completely reasonable to have both discussions at the same time. The causal gap should be straight up illegal, but the first one is a matter to be addressed by public policy.

That the causal gap is smaller than the correlation is trivial; It doesn't mean that, if for example the remainder of the gap is due to career choice, we shouldn't be examining why career choices are different in the first place.

This is hardly a controversial point, friend. Pointing out the causal wage gap is not really 23 cents on the dollar is tantamount to "PS+ games aren't really free!". Yeah, we know. But the conversation is larger than that.

 

[nature boy]

are you guys freaking about a single poll, when the aggregate is +6/+7?

cmon

It's not freaking out, it's how the Trump takes one poll (plus the Zogby poll) to deceive people into thinking it's a dead heat.

 

[bangbang i'm a timpani]

are you guys freaking about a single poll, when the aggregate is +6/+7?

cmon

but dude trump apologized he s totally changd and will win now

 

[Crocodile]

Good shit Bernie!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...king-forward-to-campaigning-for-clinton-after

The big guns are about to come out.

Also, on Politico's Playbook (lol) Allen says that the Hill GOP is starting to shit bricks about the fundraising difference between Clinton and Trump. They think the Senate is basically gone either way, but they are bullish on the House for now. BUT, they think if Clinton and the DNC start pumping money to the House races, they're fucked.

SO DONATE BROS!

Good shit on Bernie

However

Good on Bernie. I think those are some good places to send him, I guess. Personally, I'd be sending him to Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine (If we really need to, I guess) and Nevada. Ohio seems meh for him to come, but if it helps Strickland, maybe.

Of course, part of my is a cynical bitch and thinks it's just going to be "Millionaires, billionaires, wall street" for an hour followed by a half hearted "Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton is okay, so let's do that, I guess." Prove me wrong Bernie! You've done it before. Do it again.

I'm slightly worried about this. Almost certainly for nothing, I'm sure I'm being paranoid but I do hope his stumping is enthusiastic for her specifically and not "oh BTW....."

 

[ampere]

Gary's just someone I could consider bothering to vote for, like Harry Browne, because he's unoffensive

Do you vote for third party candidates? Or just vote pragmatically against your least favorite major party candidate

 

[DrForester]

Trump sinking so low, so early means he really has nowhere to go but up.


Still even outlier polls showing him tied or winning are frightening.

 

[Teggy]

are you guys freaking about a single poll, when the aggregate is +6/+7?

cmon

Maybe if Hillary had won Michigan I would be less nervous. ARRRGGHHHHHHHH

Spoiler

ARGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[hawk2025]

On a somewhat related note:

I find it odd that Libertarians could ever vote non-strategically.

How can you justify the deep-seated belief that the rationality of the self will lead to the best outcomes when you don't even follow it yourself when voting?

 

[Diablos]

They changed how their polling methodology this year.

They are not polling like they did in 2012.

Why? "Hey guys we nailed 2012, NOW LETS CHANGE EVERYTHING AROUND LOLSKIES"

 

[Armaros]

Why? "Hey guys we nailed 2012, NOW LETS CHANGE EVERYTHING AROUND LOLSKIES"

Probably thinking Trump throws a wrench into things and reacting in that regard.

Who knows.

 

[User 463088]

What's wrong with YouGov?

There's nothing wrong with YouGov. They consistently underestimated Hillary's support during the primary, but they were pretty accurate as to who was going to win. I think part of it is their method. But, there's nothing wrong with them..

 

[benjipwns]

That was my takeaway from the Town Hall. The guy's rhetoric is like a hot butterknife through steak.

In the entirely impossible event they got in the debates the fun part would be when Pence and Kaine are trapped in a debate with Weld.

Are you going to argue against the legitimacy of the party now?

I'm not really a libertarian (other than I usually don't quibble) and I'm definitely not a Libertarian which is a joke organization dedicated to finding as many ways of shooting itself in the foot as possible. (If Gary does pull in 5-10% of the vote it will be exciting to see how they squander it.) Also, I don't participate in the electoral process in general.

The only reason I voted in 2012 was because the MIGOP had Gary taken off the ballot. (Michigan has a "sore loser law" but the MIGOP blocked Gary from removing his name from the primary ballot, even though he had dropped out well before, just so they could remove him from the general election ballot.)

He was registered as a write-in and the ballot status vote shifted to the Senate race.

I didn't vote again until the Democratic Primary this year (to see if I was the only person in my precinct to vote in person for Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente Guerra, which I apparently was) which I did because when I drove by there was nobody in line.

I think back in 2014 I posted scans on here of some of the many mailers I got trying to shame me into voting.

Do you vote for third party candidates? Or just vote pragmatically against your least favorite major party candidate

I generally don't vote. If I do it's for helping to obtain ballot status. It's why I voted Green years ago.

Except for the Natural Law Party. Those kooks don't count.

On a somewhat related note:

I find it odd that Libertarians could ever vote non-strategically.

How can you justify the deep-seated belief that the rationality of the self will lead to the best outcomes when you don't even follow it yourself when voting?

Repeated studies have found that only about 10% of self-identifiers and/or people whose views align closely (say like, it's their top person/party on isidewith and get 75+%) actually vote for the Libertarian Party.

The Party's abortion stance actually used to hurt it quite a bit. I don't know if that's changed in the last decade though.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

How am I being disingenuous?

I already explained how.

There is a correlational wage gap and a causal wage gap.

This is gibberish. Either gender is a correlational or a causal factor.

It's completely reasonable to have both discussions at the same time.

No, it is actually unreasonable. One is a fantasy that has been adopted by the left as a political rallying cry, and the other is a real-thing-that-does-exist.

The causal gap should be straight up illegal

It already is illegal.

but the first one is a matter to be addressed by public policy.

Disarmingly reasonable thing to say when it's actually meaningless. If the "correlational wage gap" is not the part of the wage gap that is caused by gender, then the only way to "correct" it through public policy is to enact policy that does not target gender issues, since those are not the issues that caused the gap. Thus the "correlational wage gap" is not a gender issue and should stop being used as one.

That the causal gap is smaller than the correlation is trivial;

Obviously it's not trivial if my entire point is that gender discrimination in the workforce is disproportionately portrayed.

It doesn't mean that, if for example the remainder of the gap is due to career choice, we shouldn't be examining why career choices are different in the first place.

I didn't say the remainder of the gap is due to choice. It's due to race, career choice, region, age, college attainment, etc. Controlling for factors is basic analysis.

This is hardly a controversial point, friend. Pointing out the causal wage gap is not really 23 cents on the dollar is tantamount to "PS+ games aren't really free!". Yeah, we know. But the conversation is larger than that.

No, first off, most people don't know. Most people think the wage gap really is that high. And they think it's because people just don't want to pay women the same amount that they pay men. And the reason they think that is because Democrats have sold this story every year since at least Geraldine Ferraro, back when there was actually a wage gap. But as the gap closed, the left didn't want to give up its story and so this horse has been beat beyond the realm of all plausibility.

Second, the conversation isn't larger than that. Maybe in some academic circles there's a broad discussion about getting women into leadership and executive positions as well as technical and engineering jobs. Maybe there's an interesting focus on the changing workforce and how more men are staying at home and women don't need to be the only caregiver. But most people, when they go to the voting booth and start tallying up the reasons they vote Democrat, are probably going to be thinking, "Oh, also, I want women to be paid the same amount for the same work. Why aren't they? I mean wtf is up with that?" It's wrong, and it's a lie.

Also, I don't play video games. I don't know what PS+ means.

 

[hawk2025]

This is gibberish. Either gender is a correlational or a causal factor.
I didn't say the remainder of the gap is due to choice. It's due to race, career choice, region, age, college attainment, etc. Controlling for factors is basic analysis.

Ok, I read the whole thing, but I'll stop with these. We're not speaking the same language.

 

[ampere]

On a somewhat related note:

I find it odd that Libertarians could ever vote non-strategically.

How can you justify the deep-seated belief that the rationality of the self will lead to the best outcomes when you don't even follow it yourself when voting?

I identified as a Libertarian from 2006-2011 or so, but I voted for Obama in 08 because I thought McCain would be a continuation of the Bush White House. I wasn't at all sold on the ACA, but I liked that Obama was pro-science and compassionate.

So yea, benji be cray

 

[campfireweekend]

I already explained how.

This is gibberish. Either gender is a correlational or a causal factor.

No, it is actually unreasonable. One is a fantasy that has been adopted by the left as a political rallying cry, and the other is a real-thing-that-does-exist.

It already is illegal.

Disarmingly reasonable thing to say when it's actually meaningless. If the "correlational wage gap" is not the part of the wage gap that is caused by gender, then the only way to "correct" it through public policy is to enact policy that does not target gender issues, since those are not the issues that caused the gap. Thus the "correlational wage gap" is not a gender issue and should stop being used as one.

Obviously it's not trivial if my entire point is that gender discrimination in the workforce is disproportionately portrayed.

I didn't say the remainder of the gap is due to choice. It's due to race, career choice, region, age, college attainment, etc. Controlling for factors is basic analysis.



No, first off, most people don't know. Most people think the wage gap really is that high. And they think it's because people just don't want to pay women the same amount that they pay men. And the reason they think that is because Democrats have sold this story every year since at least Geraldine Ferraro, back when there was actually a wage gap. But as the gap closed, the left didn't want to give up its story and so this horse has been beat beyond the realm of all plausibility.

Second, the conversation isn't larger than that. Maybe in some academic circles there's a broad discussion about getting women into leadership and executive positions as well as technical and engineering jobs. Maybe there's an interesting focus on the changing workforce and how more men are staying at home and women don't need to be the only caregiver. But most people, when they go to the voting booth and start tallying up the reasons they vote Democrat, are probably going to be thinking, "Oh, also, I want women to be paid the same amount for the same work. Why aren't they? I mean wtf is up with that?" It's wrong, and it's a lie.

Also, I don't play video games. I don't know what PS+ means.

You really like being wrong don't you?

Read this, and stop talking authoritatively about a field whose first principles you'd ignore just to make a point: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/49k23i/the_problem_with_controlling_for_all_other/

Also take an econometrics class.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Ok, I read the whole thing, but I'll stop here. We're not speaking the same language.

Look, I hear what you're saying, but even in the greater discussion to be had about what jobs women choose and what that means for women's wages, comparing the average wage of all women to the average wage of all men is super hamfisted and useless. And further, I'm not saying that we should abandon all discussion about equality and egalitarianism, I'm just saying that lying to voters is not the way I want to better the lives of women. And the wage gap, as presented, is a lie.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"And it came to pass"

Stop, Joseph Smith, plz.

 

[benjipwns]

I identified as a Libertarian from 2006-2011 or so, but I voted for Obama in 08 because I thought McCain would be a continuation of the Bush White House.

This was common.

Though reason has a lot of deliberate non-voters, a few of the first responses:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote

1. Who are you voting for in November? If the polls in my home state are close: Obama (McCain is simply too incompetent these days to be president). If not, I'll make a protest vote for Barr.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? In 2004: John Kerry (I wanted to fire Bush). In 2000: Harry Browne.

1. Who are you voting for in November? Obama. The Republicans must be punished and punished hard.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? George W. Bush and George W. Bush. I am disheartened and ashamed.

1. Who are you voting for in November? I plan to vote for Obama mainly because he is not a Republican and not John McCain, who is temperamentally unfit to be president.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? I voted for Bush, but I regret it. I voted for him because I couldn't vote for Kerry, but would not vote at all if I had it to do over.

1. Who are you voting for in November? Bob Barr. He's the first serious candidate the LP has run since I've been eligible to vote.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? Kerry in 2004. Bush in 2000.

jfc Balko...that Barr "serious candidate" garbage is worse than anything else anyone said probably.

Barr is the reason a number of Libertarians didn't trust Gary in 2012. Because Barr immediately went back to the GOP and reversed his positions back on stuff like drugs, gay marriage, war on terror, etc.

 

[campfireweekend]

Look, I hear what you're saying, but even in the greater discussion to be had about what jobs women choose and what that means for women's wages, comparing the average wage of all women to the average wage of all men is super hamfisted and useless. And further, I'm not saying that we should abandon all discussion about equality and egalitarianism, I'm just saying that lying to voters is not the way I want to better the lives of women. And the wage gap, as presented, is a lie.

MEDIAN.

It's not a lie. It's literally the gap between how much women and men earn. 7 cents is due to gender discrinination. The rest is due to systemic discrimination that pushes women away from fields or working more hours.

And you're saying we should ignore the larger part when we present that statistic, just because. Because it's somehow not indicative of a gender wage gap. That's straight up bullshit.

 

[User 463088]

When the Republican strategist is like "Trump maybe could get up to 5% of the African American vote if he works really, really hard" you know you're fucked.

 

[User 463088]

The NRCC (Republican House fundraising) raised $4.6 million in July (half of what they made in June). The DCCC (Democratic House fundraising) raised $12 million in July.

Hahahahahaha

 

[Felix Lighter]

This effort to gain black voter support for Trump is so bizarre to me. The party killed themselves with black voters with virtually any candidate they put out there just by how they and their base treated the first black president and now they think Trump, widely known for his racist rhetoric is going to someway pull in support. So weird. They couldn't possibly be this oblivious.

 

[benjipwns]

The NRCC (Republican House fundraising) raised $4.6 million in July (half of what they made in June). The DCCC (Democratic House fundraising) raised $12 million in July.

Hahahahahaha

typical democrat laughing at and mocking those who are worse off

 

[Balphon]

This effort to gain black voter support for Trump is so bizarre to me. The party killed themselves with black voters with virtually any candidate they put out there just by how they and their base treated the first black president and now they think Trump, widely known for his racist rhetoric is going to someway pull in support. So weird. They couldn't possibly be this oblivious.

The common wisdom is that he's not actually angling for black voter support. Instead, he's trying to make himself appear less transparently racist so suburban white voters can stomach voting for him.

 

[Dierce]

This effort to gain black voter support for Trump is so bizarre to me. The party killed themselves with black voters with virtually any candidate they put out there just by how they and their base treated the first black president and now they think Trump, widely known for his racist rhetoric is going to someway pull in support. So weird. They couldn't possibly be this oblivious.

They aren't going for black voter support. Orange turd wants to undercut Clinton's gains with white female and college educated white voters by pretending to be less racist and compassionate. I hope it backfires on them badly.

 

[User 463088]

This effort to gain black voter support for Trump is so bizarre to me. The party killed themselves with black voters with virtually any candidate they put out there just by how they and their base treated the first black president and now they think Trump, widely known for his racist rhetoric is going to someway pull in support. So weird. They couldn't possibly be this oblivious.

It's not so much about winning African American voters. It's about appearing not racist to college educated whites who understand racism is bad. Issue is, while I do think Trump is racist/prejudiced against African Americans, he's not been hit for that particular form of racism. It's his racist/prejudice against Hispanic and Muslims that has been the issue.

But, real talk, I don't think his problem with suburban whites is based on racism. I think a lot of white, lean Republican voters are fine with diet (and even overt) racism...as long as it's not a threat to their way of life. Trump is dangerous and totally unqualified. That's what's getting them on the Hillary train...not the racism.

 

[Boke1879]

This effort to gain black voter support for Trump is so bizarre to me. The party killed themselves with black voters with virtually any candidate they put out there just by how they and their base treated the first black president and now they think Trump, widely known for his racist rhetoric is going to someway pull in support. So weird. They couldn't possibly be this oblivious.

I mean it's clear it's just to placate the base and make him appear not racist. He's not really appealing to black voters. Earlier in the speech he did say some good things, but was totally negated with "what the hell do you have to lose?"

Lets give Trump and his campaign the benefit of the doubt for the sake of what I'm about to say. Lets say he was legit trying to win over black voters. The GOP just straight up has a perception problem.

They are shocked they don't have the black vote yet pander to a base with bigoted language. They don't take the time to campaign or even visit predominately black areas. Their rhetoric falls on the ears of their supporters and people who don't want to be called racist.

Say what you want about Clinton, but at least she has and does put in the work to appeal to black voters. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but there's a reason Bernie lost the south to Clinton on the backs on black voters. He simply just didn't campaign.

 

[User 463088]

He's still on the teleprompter.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

MEDIAN.

It's not a lie. It's literally the gap between how much women and men earn. 7 cents is due to gender discrinination. The rest is due to systemic discrimination that pushes women away from fields or working more hours.

And you're saying we should ignore the larger part when we present that statistic, just because. Because it's somehow not indicative of a gender wage gap. That's straight up bullshit.

The assumption that there is no solid core of gender-based difference that might precipitate different wage earnings is, itself, a bias.

 

[Boke1879]

It's not so much about winning African American voters. It's about appearing not racist to college educated whites who understand racism is bad. Issue is, while I do think Trump is racist/prejudiced against African Americans, he's not been hit for that particular form of racism. It's his racist/prejudice against Hispanic and Muslims that has been the issue.

But, real talk, I don't think his problem with suburban whites is based on racism. I think a lot of white, lean Republican voters are fine with diet (and even overt) racism...as long as it's not a threat to their way of life. Trump is dangerous and totally unqualified. That's what's getting them on the Hillary train...not the racism.

No doubt he's racist, but I think even he and his campaign knows he can't cross the line too much when it comes to African American's or he fucking finished.

 

[User 463088]

No doubt he's racist, but I think even he and his campaign knows he can't cross the line too much when it comes to African American's or he fucking finished.

I think he knows he can't say it out loud. I still think he's a racist piece of shit.

Teleprompter Trump is so dull....sooooo dull. You can tell he doesn't feel comfortable doing this. So low energy! Sad.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I guess that makes sense. Not with people that actually have a problem with his racist bullshit but with people looking for an excuse to vote for him but don't want to admit it publically. It gives them a chance to play dumb. I don't know if that gains any real votes though. Those people alone in the voter booth were going to go Trump anyway. Maybe it helps with polling though.

 

[Grexeno]

I've gotten to the point that whenever someone says "As a non-American" in politics threads I just immediately ignore whatever comes after.

 

[User 463088]

Obama and Hillary are now expanding the military.....of Iran.

He also just said that Obama lied to us. HE LIED TO US.

Why does he scream when he reads?

Hillary can't defeat ISIS because she doesn't have the strength or stamina along with the other problems America has. And we have a lot of problems....How does that work?

"Phony Clinton Foundation"?

Whoever is writing this shit needs to stop trying to put Trumpisms into the speech. You can't properly script those things and it makes his "jokes" sound stupid and petty. They have to happen organically.

 

[Bowdz]

The NRCC (Republican House fundraising) raised $4.6 million in July (half of what they made in June). The DCCC (Democratic House fundraising) raised $12 million in July.

Hahahahahaha

Lol, it feels good to be the party of big money. SUCK IT PEASANT REPUBLICANS

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump flipping on literally one of his five policy positions:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarr...leaders-openne?utm_term=.ni43AzbdW#.gn7Bb39gr

 

[Boke1879]

I think he knows he can't say it out loud. I still think he's a racist piece of shit.

Teleprompter Trump is so dull....sooooo dull. You can tell he doesn't feel comfortable doing this. So low energy! Sad.

Right? At least with unhinged Trump he's at least entertaining. This Trump looks like someone who's about to jump out of his own skin because he just wants to say some vile shit.

 

[User 463088]

He's going on and on about coal miners in Virginia. As of 2014, there were less than 3500 coal miners in the entire state.

 

[Tranqueris]

I think he knows he can't say it out loud. I still think he's a racist piece of shit.

Teleprompter Trump is so dull....sooooo dull. You can tell he doesn't feel comfortable doing this. So low energy! Sad.

I really don't see Kellyanne Conway lasting for very long. Especially if Trump stays down in the polls after trying the teleprompter for a while and also if more Republicans jump ship publicly.